Head of School at National Child Research Center (NCRC) - Arrest warrant issued

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obviously not all male teachers are pedos. Not even most. But those that are and traffic in child porn as JC allegedly does likely know each other. These networks have existed all over the world. It strains credulity to think that these pedos operating on the same campuses may not know each other. According to the press release, JC was trying to recruit another abuser and that is the nature of the charges he is facing.

I feel like you are just saying this. Is there any science backing this up? I mean, if this dumb theory were true, then wouldn’t investigators just investigate the male friends and acquaintances of pedos?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what percentage of posters here saying that basically all male teachers are pedos (and if not, they deserve the presumption that they are) are SAHMs who don’t get off their asses but expect the schools to raise their kids so they can attend to the important and incredibly complicated work of “homemaking” and haven’t meaningfully contributed to society since their high school band’s car wash fundraiser 20 years ago but are quick to shit on teachers based on their gender.

Super curious what the overlap is because I’m guessing it’s pretty high.

This is one of the best responses ever on this site. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to normalize or preempt the ask. I’ve always been too nervous to ask if the door is closed when my DD gets invited to the male counselor’s office for lunch. Too nervous to ask if the male teacher at preschool changed my DD’s clothes after an accident.

I never had reason to believe there was a problem but I wished I just knew the norms and that the (private) school was straight with me from the onset. Send out their policies so no one has to fear judgment or retribution for asking.

This is exactly why I wouldn’t have my preschool child with an unknown male individual.

Parents who think it’s great, you have plenty of opportunities these days. Go at it, and hope for the best.

Statistically, you’re more likely to have someone from your family or inner circle abuse your child rather than at school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what percentage of posters here saying that basically all male teachers are pedos (and if not, they deserve the presumption that they are) are SAHMs who don’t get off their asses but expect the schools to raise their kids so they can attend to the important and incredibly complicated work of “homemaking” and haven’t meaningfully contributed to society since their high school band’s car wash fundraiser 20 years ago but are quick to shit on teachers based on their gender.

Super curious what the overlap is because I’m guessing it’s pretty high.

Your hatred towards women who don’t work outside the home is next level. Glad you have a place to vent on DCUM.

She was basically responding to the complete hatred or bashing of males that want to get in the field of working with children. See the irony

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why hasn't NCRC provided resources to families and professional help on how to figure out if their children are victims?

This is an important comment that really hasn’t come up here. At least a “we don’t have the answers, but we are going to find out” would be better than “we’re pretty sure he wasn’t alone with kids.” They haven’t expressed a commitment to finding out if Carroll was 1:1 with kids. All they’ve said is he had an “adult facing role.” Countless people at the school are crying out for a third party investigation, which of course they need. Hearing from the school that JC wasn’t alone with kids does not provide the type of clarity and assurance that parents need. It is an expense and an endeavor that is well with the cost. The answers for parents must be crystal clear. The stakes could not be higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why hasn't NCRC provided resources to families and professional help on how to figure out if their children are victims?

This is an important comment that really hasn’t come up here. At least a “we don’t have the answers, but we are going to find out” would be better than “we’re pretty sure he wasn’t alone with kids.” They haven’t expressed a commitment to finding out if Carroll was 1:1 with kids. All they’ve said is he had an “adult facing role.” Countless people at the school are crying out for a third party investigation, which of course they need. Hearing from the school that JC wasn’t alone with kids does not provide the type of clarity and assurance that parents need. It is an expense and an endeavor that is well with the cost. The answers for parents must be crystal clear. The stakes could not be higher.

Thank you. I appreciate the other commentary here, but let's acknowledge these fundamental questions that the school hasn't bothered to touch to date that suggest that they're focused solely on protecting the school and not the well being of the students. We need student-centered action from the school, and fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what percentage of posters here saying that basically all male teachers are pedos (and if not, they deserve the presumption that they are) are SAHMs who don’t get off their asses but expect the schools to raise their kids so they can attend to the important and incredibly complicated work of “homemaking” and haven’t meaningfully contributed to society since their high school band’s car wash fundraiser 20 years ago but are quick to shit on teachers based on their gender.

Super curious what the overlap is because I’m guessing it’s pretty high.

Your hatred towards women who don’t work outside the home is next level. Glad you have a place to vent on DCUM.

She was basically responding to the complete hatred or bashing of males that want to get in the field of working with children. See the irony

No - it seemed like a dig towards sahm women and implying they are closed minded and hate men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to normalize or preempt the ask. I’ve always been too nervous to ask if the door is closed when my DD gets invited to the male counselor’s office for lunch. Too nervous to ask if the male teacher at preschool changed my DD’s clothes after an accident.

I never had reason to believe there was a problem but I wished I just knew the norms and that the (private) school was straight with me from the onset. Send out their policies so no one has to fear judgment or retribution for asking.

This is exactly why I wouldn’t have my preschool child with an unknown male individual.

Parents who think it’s great, you have plenty of opportunities these days. Go at it, and hope for the best.

Statistically, you’re more likely to have someone from your family or inner circle abuse your child rather than at school.

This is the truest statement made so far regarding the odds of being victimized by a sexual predator. Should maybe be more worried about some random uncle than a teacher or a coach.

[Anonymous]

The school should have remained closed until all necessary actions were taken. Federal authorities should have inspected the entire building, interviewed all staff and board members regardless of their status, and thoroughly investigated those who were hired, paid, promoted, or favored by this individual. Without these measures, simply convincing terrified parents to resume “business as usual” is deeply irresponsible. Many parents, driven by fear and the need to protect their mental health, may cling to denial about the severity of the case.

This school head held significant power for many years, with the ability to hire staff and access all facilities. Who can argue that he didn’t engage with “like-minded” individuals in real life, as he did online, let them into the school, and lead them to, at the very least, produce explicit photos? As he advised the “agent” online, “…tell the kids it is a game, they will do…” These are 3- to 5-year-old children.

The school’s “business as usual” approach is both harmful and dismissive of the gravity of the situation.

[Anonymous]

Looks like the eviction action is based on the owners of the house claiming that they wanted to repossess for personal use -- which I guess is a basis for eviction in D.C. -- and Carroll declining to leave. The Carroll response to the lawsuit filed on Nov. 18 basically said that the owners had two other nicer properties and were not actually intending to use the Carroll house as their primary residence -- and that really the owners wanted to sell it. Which maybe isn't a basis for eviction or maybe you have to jump through more hoops? (I'm not a landlord-tenant lawyer).

[Anonymous]

Yes. Absolutely. The school must do more. It offends one’s intelligence to say, as the acting head emailed, that James had “an adult facing role.” We all saw him every.single.day greeting and interacting with the students and he was the head of a PRESCHOOL. A preschool, surrounded by children. Every single teacher and administrator needs to be interviewed and we need to figure out how much individual access he had to the kids. This cannot be done internally by the school.

[Anonymous]

They also need to interview teachers who have left NCRC under his tenure. Did something they saw drive them away?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The school should have remained closed until all necessary actions were taken. Federal authorities should have inspected the entire building, interviewed all staff and board members regardless of their status, and thoroughly investigated those who were hired, paid, promoted, or favored by this individual. Without these measures, simply convincing terrified parents to resume “business as usual” is deeply irresponsible. Many parents, driven by fear and the need to protect their mental health, may cling to denial about the severity of the case.

This school head held significant power for many years, with the ability to hire staff and access all facilities. Who can argue that he didn’t engage with “like-minded” individuals in real life, as he did online, let them into the school, and lead them to, at the very least, produce explicit photos? As he advised the “agent” online, “…tell the kids it is a game, they will do…” These are 3- to 5-year-old children.

The school’s “business as usual” approach is both harmful and dismissive of the gravity of the situation.

This is officially the most uninformed comment on this thread. Yeah, walk into the FBI’s child predator group lady and you tell them to “inspect the entire building” (Jesus) and then after that “interview ALL the staff,” etc. Those FBI agents will show you where you can shove your entitled demands. They do not work for you or for NCRC and they actually do know how to investigate predators.

[Anonymous]

Really? I don’t know anything about the FBI operations, but it feels like if they just nabbed a pedo who has spent his entire career with young children, that they’d wanna take a look at the school where he works. Who would be responsible for finding out if he put cameras in the bathrooms? (Since he has a pee fetish). Would that be the job of the PA? (I’m serious. Whose job is that?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what percentage of posters here saying that basically all male teachers are pedos (and if not, they deserve the presumption that they are) are SAHMs who don’t get off their asses but expect the schools to raise their kids so they can attend to the important and incredibly complicated work of “homemaking” and haven’t meaningfully contributed to society since their high school band’s car wash fundraiser 20 years ago but are quick to shit on teachers based on their gender.

Super curious what the overlap is because I’m guessing it’s pretty high.

Your hatred towards women who don’t work outside the home is next level. Glad you have a place to vent on DCUM.

She was basically responding to the complete hatred or bashing of males that want to get in the field of working with children. See the irony

No - it seemed like a dig towards sahm women and implying they are closed minded and hate men.

Have you read this thread? Lots of people are basically saying men shouldn’t be in any field working with children or they are some kind of creep.